FSC's Diane Duke Responds to Comments on .XXX by ICM and Others

[Redrob]

As posted on Xbiz.net by Diane Duke of the FSC:

Sat, Jul 10, 02:09 am


I?d like to begin by addressing Stephen?s comments. Stephen writes: "Industry support" depends on which adult industry you're talking about and what you mean by support.? If you?d like to know who the US adult industry is, you can simply take a look at Xbiz?s list of advertisers. On that list, you?ll find names such as Hustler, Adam & Eve, AEBN, Gamelink, EvilAngel, Video Secrets, Naked Sword, Premiere, Wicked, HotMovies, Cal Exotics, Screaming O, (and that?s naming just a few from a cursory glance through the first few pages of XBiz.) These companies and hundreds of others are the US Adult Industry. Stephen, these companies advertise in XBiz, ?The Industy News Source.? How can you refuse to acknowledge that these companies are ?the industry? ?



In terms of how we define ?support.? Well, the CEO?s of the companies listed above have written and/or voiced their opposition to .xxx?quite clearly. Yet, somehow Stephen interprets their opposition as support. He cites Larry Flynt as an example. However, here is Larry Flynt?s position on .xxx in his own words (this is from a letter submitted to ICANN):




I am writing as the founder and chairman of Hustler and Larry Flynt Publications (LFP) to oppose the creation of a .xXX sTLD. Hustler is a leader in exclusive adult entertainment content, with over 36 premium sites, and tens of thousands of videos and photos to offer to millions of consumers worldwide.

The creation of a .XXX sTLD is a bad idea. It will lead to unwarranted and unwanted regulation of the adult industry and increased censorship.

One of the qualifications of a sponsored top-level-domain is broad-based support from the sponsorship community-the adult entertainment industry. ICM claims to have that support, it doesn't. The vast majority of people in our industry who have registered domains through ICM have done so as a defensive action to protect their brands and their traffic. Of course there are also opportunists looking to capitalize on the potential future value of certain domain names. Other than these two groups, I think you would be hard pressed to find people in our industry who have registered domain names throWgh ICM because they believe in the concept. The adult industry has been hit hard by copyright infringement and the recession and especially now, we don't need to spend money we don't have on a product we don't want.

The idea of an outside entity, ICM, creating a Board, IFFOR, to regulate an industry it knows

nothing about is absurd. It will lead to turmoil within the industry and a headache for ICANN that it can't even begin to imagine. I think it is time that ICANN see the ICM Registry for what it really is. This is not an organization looking to seNe the best interests of the public or its alleged sponsors. These are shrewd, manipulative businesspeople looking to establish a resource that they would control for their own financial gain. The minority opinion of the Internal Review Panel got it right. The sponsorship community does not support ICM's application for a .XXX sTLD. Plain and simple, we don't want it, we don't need

it, .XXX sTLD is a bad idea.

Sincerely,

Larry Flynt

Chairman and Founder

LFP and Hustler




So, the reader must ask him/herself, ?Does Stephen know what Larry Flynt supports/opposes? Or, does Larry Flynt know what Larry Flynt supports/opposes?" You be the judge. I know. Stephen believes that Larry secretly supports .xxx, but wrote this letter of opposition because he was concerned that he might offend someone. As we know, Larry Flynt would never want to piss anybody off.



[I also wanted to add that, while Stephen is very busy trying to define many different adult industries, FSC is proud to represent ?the powerhouse players at the upper echelon of the biz, i.e. the folks that can write the checks to be upper-level sponsors of industry associations,? ?the affiliates,? and the ?rabble rousing board whores.? If the adult trade association won?t represent whores, who will;)]



Stephen goes on to explain that he defines "support of .xxx" to mean, ?pre-registered a domain and intend to purchase it.?? Well, as Q so kindly pointed out in his comment to Stuart, ?I thought that pre-registering .XXX domains wasn't supposed to be equated with stating support for the proposal? As I recall, Stuart promised that defensive preregistrations would NOT be used as evidence of community support while sitting in front of a microphone at the XBIZ Hollywood show one year.? Well, yes, Stuart did promise that defensive registrations would not be used as evidence of support. (Thank you Q. I have the video of Stuart making that commitment and will be using it along with other documentation about defensive registrations.)



However, Stuart did not keep his word, and he continues to violate the commitment that he made to the adult industry. For example, in interviews with both Fox News and BusinessWeek, he specifically mentioned Kink.com as an example of support from within the industry. The folks at Kink were horrified that their defensive registration was being misused in this way. Consequently, Peter Ackworth, the CEO of Kink.com, has written the following letter for FSC to use in refuting Stuart?s claims:




To Whomever it may concern:

While we already submitted comments in opposition to the proposed .xxx TLD, we realize that are our defensive pre-registration of domains is incorrectly being used as evidence supporting the .xxx TLD. This is far from the truth. Kink.com is extremely opposed to the .xxx TLD. It will cause our company a lot of additional operational costs which will be a burden to our business, curb growth and hurt jobs.

We find it absurd that defensive pre-registration is being used as evidence of support. Businesses must protect their own interests, and the jobs of their employees. If this were to be passed, which would be a shame, we would be in a weaker position to protect our brands without having pre-registered. It?s that simple. We support the Free Speech Coalition in their opposition to the .xxx TLD.

Sincerely,

Peter Acworth
Founder and CEO of Kink.com




Kink.com registered thousand of domain names for one reason and one reason only--to protect their property. They have been loud and clear about their opposition to .xxx. Yet, Stuart will continue to claim that Kink?s registrations are evidence of industry support. The man has no shame! He may be able to fool an interviewer, but he can?t fool the adult industry. It is FSC?s contention that a vast majority of pre-registrations are either defensive registrations like Kink?s, or they are pre-registrations by adult Registrar?s staking out the profits they?ll make off of the industry. And, we intend to prove this to both ICANN and GAC. Stuart always has the opportunity to prove me wrong. All he has to do is release the long list of names of those within the industry who support the .xxx sTLD--not folks who pre-registered, but rather folks who have come out in support of ICM?s application for a .xxx sTLD. But instead, all we?ve gotten is broken commitments, blatant lies, and a complete lack of transparency. Yet, Stuart keeps talking about the ?trust? that .xxx will instill in the adult consumer. If his own registrants don?t trust him, why the hell should the consumer?

[Redrob]

Before I move onto Stuart?s comments, I want to bring up two issues that aren?t receiving much attention here. First, we are justifiably and reasonably asking ourselves if there could be potential benefits from a sponsored top level domain. We are, after all, business people and we don?t want to pass up an opportunity to grow the adult market. I respect and partially agree with Marc?s and Q?s analysis of some potential benefits of a sTLD. However, just as we should consider potential benefits, we must equally weigh potential risks.



For example, we must always be mindful of the fact that when Jeffrey Douglas and I traveled to Lisbon to lobby against ICM?s application in 2007, we carried with us legislation that Max Bachus planned to introduce in Congress mandating .XXX for all adult businesses. There is a very real probability?not a possibility, but a probability?that such legislation will be introduced again. And, I know?Stuart will tell you that he has a seven figure ?war chest? ?to lobby against anti-industry legislation. Is it more likely that ICM will use their money to lobby in favor of such legislation, thus eliminating their .com and .net competition? If .XXX is mandated in the US alone, ICM will go from having a small percentage of the adult market to the entire adult market, increasing ICM profits exponentially.



There is no doubt in my mind that the time, money and resources required to fight legislation mandating .XXX will be shouldered by the very same FSC members who are shouldering the cost of fighting .xxx. My point is that, while we weigh potential benefits, we must also consider what the risks are and if ICM or the industry will bear the consequences if those risks become reality.



Second, we must evaluate the premises and assumptions upon which this particular sTLD is based, as opposed to the merits of a sTLD in general. Stuart argues that ?Whilst in no way casting aspersions on participants who operate in other TLD?s,? .xxx will be comprised of only the ?responsible? companies. The implication, of course, is that irresponsibility runs rampant through the adult community. And, throughout his comments, Stuart articulates all of the ways that the adult industry supposedly uses and abuses its customers. And, in fact, the branding of .xxx requires ICM to draw a distinction between it?s ?responsible? members and all other adult sites, emphasizing the ?fact? that consumers ?can?t trust sites on other TLDs.? His brand succeeds only if he is successful at demonizing all non-.xxx sites.



But FSC does not accept this premise?the premise that the majority of the industry is irresponsible. FSC believes that this premise is based upon myths, misinformation, and a complete lack of understanding of the industry. Take Stuart?s assertion, for example, that customers will be safe from malware on a .xxx site. This presupposes that there is a problem with malware on non-.xxx ,adult sites. However, a recent headline in ?The Register? reads, ?Regular Domains Beat Smut Sites at Hosting Malware?: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/30/unsafe_surfing/ The article reports that ?New research pours scorn on the comforting yet erroneous belief that Windows surfers who avoid smut and wares on the web are likely to avoid exposure to malware. A study by free anti-virus firm Avast found 99 infected legitimate domains for every infected adult website.? We should take incredible pride in this finding rather than sitting around complaining about how bad the industry is. FSC simply does not accept the notion that the adult industry is an irresponsible industry. Like any and all industries, there are companies that don?t play by the rules?but these companies are the exception, not the norm. (FSC actually began creating a PR campaign called ?The Faces of Adult,? a series in which we hope to communicate the type of information reported in this study. But fighting .xxx, fighting mandatory condoms, and a few other things have taken us away from that important work.)





In terms of Stuart?s comments, you guys have done an excellent job of voicing the industry?s opposition to .xxx and explaining the reasoning behind that opposition. So, I?m not going to re-hash the objections, concerns, and frustration that you have so articulately expressed. Instead, I?ll simply add a few thoughts.


Stuart Wrote:
Pricing One only has to look at the aftermarket going rate for adult domains to realize that these new domains are going to have real, tangible value. The opportunity to buy something today for $60, that has the real potential for being worth $600 or $6,000 tomorrow. We will be spending millions of dollars on promotion of the .XXX brand, which will bring in substantial traffic to these domains. Your .XXX brand will have unprecedented exposure hopefully bringing in customers who feel more confident to part with their financial information.


FSC Reply:
My guess is that those valuable names (names with potential resale of $600 to $6000) have been pre-registered by adult Registrars like Greg Dumas, who Stuart had testify on his behalf during the Public Forum at the ICANN Board meeting in Brussels. Adult registries are one of the few entities that will profit from .xxx, and I?m certain that they are doing everything within their power to lay the groundwork for maximizing their profits.

The truth is that, yes, if ICM?s application is accepted, the resale value of sex.xxx could be significant. But, how many such domains are there? Very few (and, I suspect that Greg owns that one already). A real adult company with 1,000 domain names would have to fork out $60,000 annually to ICM just to protect the traffic they currently enjoy. Yet, the average webmaster will see no return on his/her investment.

Oh, and I love the marketing idea! Sporting events eh? How about the Superbowl???? Ask Janet Jackson how that worked out for her. Can?t you just hear the commercial now: ?Grab the kids and come on down to Dodger Stadium. It?s mini-bat night, brought to you by .xxx? Stuart will be lucky to get a decal on the undercarriage of a NASCAR vehicle.



Stuart Wrote:
Protection: ICM is well aware of the investment, you the Adult Entertainment provider has made in building not only your brand but developing content. A first within the TLD community is ICM?s Rapid Takedown System. Any member demonstrating a violation of their Trademark or Copyright will be able to invoke our rapid takedown system. A review period and full adjudication of the matter will then ensue to verify the violation, during such time the domain shall remain in suspension. Upon a successful adjudication in favor of the holder of rights, the violating domain will be withdrawn.
Equally as important is Pirated Content. ICM is committed to a policy of Non Proliferation of Pirated Content and or Material. Repeat offenders will face will be face permanently removal from the .XXX TLD.

FSC Reply:
This argument leaves me wondering. Let?s assume that the ICM application is accepted. I don?t pretend to be an expert in consumer behavior, but it seems to me that, if I?m an adult consumer, I now know that, when I?m looking for my porn, if I click on a .xxx site, my porn is going to be expensive. If I click on a .com site, my porn is going to be cheap or free. Particularly in a recessed economy such as this, price point actually does matter to the people who create, distribute and sell legal material because price point matters to the adult consumer.
That?s why FSC has developed a comprehensive Anti-Piracy Action Program. We believe that the solution to piracy is a strategy of education, labeling, litigation, and monetization. We do not believe that creating a piracy-free domain will do anything other than drive consumers into the arms of the pirates. In fact, we believe that this dichotomy could create a pattern of consumer behavior that takes decades to break.

Continued in next post

[Redrob]

Stuart Wrote:
Policy Making and IFFOR



IFFOR will be tasked with setting the policies for .XXX. Details can be found at www.iffor.org. This is an independent entity from ICM and will be funded through contract with ICM to the tune of $10 per registration per year. We estimate now that we will launch with between 300,000-500,000 names so that would translate into $3-$5 million a year for IFFOR. With annual operating costs of approximately $500,000 a year, substantial monies will be available for IFFOR to donate, sponsor and fund whatever initiatives it feels appropraite .We envisage a range of initiatives being considered, including but not limited to: health and safety of Adult industry workers, legal challenges facing the industry such as 2257, piracy, counterfeiting, onerous legislation etc, labeling initiatives, combating child abuse, parental awareness etc.

The Policy Advisory Board of IFFOR will be a nine person Board with 5 seats going directly to Adult Industry Representatives from around the world with ICM, Privacy and Security, Free Speech and Child Protection Advocates each getting an additional seat. The Adult industry will have a majority representation on this Board . . .



IFFOR will operate in an open and transparent manner and will solicit comment and feedback on its activities from its sponsored community and other impacted stakeholders.


FSC?s Reply
I?ve had several discussions with Stuart about .xxx, and in one conversation, I asked him why he didn?t just apply for the gTLD. His response was ?Because, with a sTLD, we can decide who is in and who is out.? The ?we? I assumed to be IFFOR. While he has seats slated for ?adult? professionals, the Board selection process and who is on the nominating committee is unclear. Who will Lawley place in that seat? Greg Dumas? Greg owns an adult registry. That?s true. But has he or will he act in the best interest of the industry or will he continue to act in his own and ICM?s best interests?



Moreover, why would we and how can we believe that IFFOR will act in a transparent manner when this application process has been anything but. Again, if Stuart wants to give us an example of transparency?all he has to do is show us his list of supporters. It really is quite simple.


Let me be perfectly clear folks--IT?S NOT OVER YET! If .xxx were a done-deal, Stuart would not be arguing his case on this board. The ICANN Board has created some significant hurdles for ICM to overcome and FSC has every intention of fully exploiting the opportunities that those hurdles present. We will continue to work to defeat this adult industry albatross.

There is much that we can and must do. As Collin so astutely pointed out in his post, this network is no longer a secure place for FSC to strategize with its members or to communicate its ?calls to action.? So, please watch your ?inbox? and the other boards and forums--there is much more to come.

No Fear, Just Knowledge.

[davecummings]

Diane rocks!!!

[pornlaw]

Redrob -- I sent Diane a PM on XBiz.net as to the condom issue and posted the question in the thread.

Can you get her to stop by and answer a question I have on FSC's position on the condom issue ?

Thanks in advance....

[LickMyBalls]

[crazytrini85]

That's great and all but it seems there are other more powerful parties at hand that may make a great profit from .XXX. When it's said and done there will be .xxx and most will run out and buy them up as fast as they can, because that's just the sort of shit stains that are in this business.

Money talks, the industry walks.

[u-Bob]

bump for this one

[davecummings]

I think that ALL of us need to keep up with this, and pray that somehow .xxx is derailed; this time, we ALL need to speak up, not just the few who take the time to look out for the best interests of ALL Adult Internet people/entities.

[davecummings]

lawley this morning responded to some recent questions at that discussion group, and then said that he was disengaging from the thread.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by davecummings

lawley this morning responded to some recent questions at that discussion group, and then said that he was disengaging from the thread.

You expected more from him?